Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while they are at it, the BRF itself should be abolished. What are they truly needed for anyway.

Tourism. They bring in a fortune [u](mostly Americans and Japanese) to London every year (except 2020 obvs).

I never quite understand this argument. If the BRF were abolished, how would that impact tourism? The castles, the history, all that would still be there for tourists, just like it is in other European countries. The big events where the current members of the BRF actually attract tourists only occur a few times a generation-- royal wedding, funeral, coronations. Most of the crowd at those events are Brits, not foreign tourists bringing in foreign money.

according to the BBC
"The tourist board of Great Britain, VisitBritain, says tourism to royal residences like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle brings millions of visitors - and therefore money. Some people say tourism from the monarchy brings in about £550 million."

That doesn't address my comment, though. People would still visit all those places. Tourists don't go because they get an audience with the Queen. The sites would still be tourist attractions because of historic interest in the monarchy. In fact, the history of the monarchy is probably of greater visiter interest than the current BRF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

No it really doesn’t. Archie has a curtesy title. He could be Earl of Dumbarton. Harry and Meghan have CHOSEN not to style
Him that way. It apparently was prince Archie or else you’re a racist horrible family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

Harry of all people should realize he's the future Andrew. He has been ridiculous all his life pretending to be more important than he is and demanding his daughters be titled. Harry and William are on different paths, their children are different and will be treated differently. Harry of all people should know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

Harry of all people should realize he's the future Andrew. He has been ridiculous all his life pretending to be more important than he is and demanding his daughters be titled. Harry and William are on different paths, their children are different and will be treated differently. Harry of all people should know this.

Comparing Harry to a pedophile? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

Harry of all people should realize he's the future Andrew. He has been ridiculous all his life pretending to be more important than he is and demanding his daughters be titled. Harry and William are on different paths, their children are different and will be treated differently. Harry of all people should know this.

DP. I kinda suspect that Harry used to understand this. But then he met Meghan, and she convinced him that he was selling himself short. It seems like she’s convinced him that he and his family deserve better than what they were getting from the BRF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

Harry of all people should realize he's the future Andrew. He has been ridiculous all his life pretending to be more important than he is and demanding his daughters be titled. Harry and William are on different paths, their children are different and will be treated differently. Harry of all people should know this.

Comparing Harry to a pedophile? Really?

Did I say that? Maybe re-read what I said instead of putting words in my mouth. Harry is on a branch that's only going to get further from the monarch, like Andrew. Instead of being a pompous blowhard stamping his feet and demanding more, he should stick with the plan of making his way in CA and leave the royal family behind and be his own person. Or he'll end up a loser like Andrew who garners no respect and never has. He has gotten himself in even more trouble because he's had no purpose in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

Harry of all people should realize he's the future Andrew. He has been ridiculous all his life pretending to be more important than he is and demanding his daughters be titled. Harry and William are on different paths, their children are different and will be treated differently. Harry of all people should know this.

Comparing Harry to a pedophile? Really?

Did I say that? Maybe re-read what I said instead of putting words in my mouth. Harry is on a branch that's only going to get further from the monarch, like Andrew. Instead of being a pompous blowhard stamping his feet and demanding more, he should stick with the plan of making his way in CA and leave the royal family behind and be his own person. Or he'll end up a loser like Andrew who garners no respect and never has. He has gotten himself in even more trouble because he's had no purpose in life.

Different Poster and I totally got what you meant by the Andrew reference. Way before Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew was a joke. He acted way more important that he was and the British press, as well as everyone, ridiculed him and his wife, who was dubbed the Duchess of Pork.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while they are at it, the BRF itself should be abolished. What are they truly needed for anyway.

Tourism. They bring in a fortune [u](mostly Americans and Japanese) to London every year (except 2020 obvs).

I never quite understand this argument. If the BRF were abolished, how would that impact tourism? The castles, the history, all that would still be there for tourists, just like it is in other European countries. The big events where the current members of the BRF actually attract tourists only occur a few times a generation-- royal wedding, funeral, coronations. Most of the crowd at those events are Brits, not foreign tourists bringing in foreign money.

according to the BBC
"The tourist board of Great Britain, VisitBritain, says tourism to royal residences like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle brings millions of visitors - and therefore money. Some people say tourism from the monarchy brings in about £550 million."

That doesn't address my comment, though. People would still visit all those places. Tourists don't go because they get an audience with the Queen. The sites would still be tourist attractions because of historic interest in the monarchy. In fact, the history of the monarchy is probably of greater visiter interest than the current BRF.

Nope most people love the pomp and like seeing the royals about town and the weddings. Without that you just have a castle. The fact PP is even commenting is a sign of the royal obsession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while they are at it, the BRF itself should be abolished. What are they truly needed for anyway.

Tourism. They bring in a fortune [u](mostly Americans and Japanese) to London every year (except 2020 obvs).

I never quite understand this argument. If the BRF were abolished, how would that impact tourism? The castles, the history, all that would still be there for tourists, just like it is in other European countries. The big events where the current members of the BRF actually attract tourists only occur a few times a generation-- royal wedding, funeral, coronations. Most of the crowd at those events are Brits, not foreign tourists bringing in foreign money.

according to the BBC
"The tourist board of Great Britain, VisitBritain, says tourism to royal residences like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle brings millions of visitors - and therefore money. Some people say tourism from the monarchy brings in about £550 million."

That doesn't address my comment, though. People would still visit all those places. Tourists don't go because they get an audience with the Queen. The sites would still be tourist attractions because of historic interest in the monarchy. In fact, the history of the monarchy is probably of greater visiter interest than the current BRF.

Nope most people love the pomp and like seeing the royals about town and the weddings. Without that you just have a castle. The fact PP is even commenting is a sign of the royal obsession.

The whole countries of France and Italy would like to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while.

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession.

But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this!

That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy.

Anne's children technically weren't eligible for the titles being the children of a daughter and not a male. But the queen made Anne an offer of a courtesy title, which she refused. They have all said they were better off without the titles, so it's interesting that Harry and Meghan so desperately want something other royal grandchildren and their parents didn't. And for now, Harry's kids are only the great grandchildren of a monarch, so not technically eligible, at this point.

True, as Meghan said in the Oprah interview.

I'll take your word on the correction about Anne. It does makes the contrast between Archie's treatment and the other grandchildren even greater, though.

Harry of all people should realize he's the future Andrew. He has been ridiculous all his life pretending to be more important than he is and demanding his daughters be titled. Harry and William are on different paths, their children are different and will be treated differently. Harry of all people should know this.

First time poster on this thread, I don't really mean to defend either side, but I think Harry is just kind of lost. I think he is likely the not entirely neurotypical younger sibling who, despite his wealth and privilege, has always had to play second fiddle, because that's how monarchy works. I think he is highly sensitive, and while it makes sense logistically in terms of how royalty "should" work, I can see a super sensitive person- who also grew up around a lot of dysfunction and largely without a mother- struggling a lot and small things like being titled being blown out of proportion. Think of regular families and sibling competition. I can only imagine that being magnified times a million when you are talking about heirs to the crown. It doesn't seem "fair" and it inherently is NOT! But you love those people, and it's the only family you have ever known. "Thinking he is more important than he is" is the kind of thing that would really sting in a family relationship.

FWIW I am the eldest with no crown to my name and not the sensitive younger, but I try to give some grace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
First time poster on this thread, I don't really mean to defend either side, but I think Harry is just kind of lost. I think he is likely the not entirely neurotypical younger sibling who, despite his wealth and privilege, has always had to play second fiddle, because that's how monarchy works. I think he is highly sensitive, and while it makes sense logistically in terms of how royalty "should" work, I can see a super sensitive person- who also grew up around a lot of dysfunction and largely without a mother- struggling a lot and small things like being titled being blown out of proportion. Think of regular families and sibling competition. I can only imagine that being magnified times a million when you are talking about heirs to the crown. It doesn't seem "fair" and it inherently is NOT! But you love those people, and it's the only family you have ever known. "Thinking he is more important than he is" is the kind of thing that would really sting in a family relationship.

FWIW I am the eldest with no crown to my name and not the sensitive younger, but I try to give some grace.

I think that Harry was indulged for most of his life. He was allowed to wallow in the "I was twelve years old and they made me walk behind her coffin my mommy diiiiiied" thing for far too long. Not healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while they are at it, the BRF itself should be abolished. What are they truly needed for anyway.

Tourism. They bring in a fortune [u](mostly Americans and Japanese) to London every year (except 2020 obvs).

I never quite understand this argument. If the BRF were abolished, how would that impact tourism? The castles, the history, all that would still be there for tourists, just like it is in other European countries. The big events where the current members of the BRF actually attract tourists only occur a few times a generation-- royal wedding, funeral, coronations. Most of the crowd at those events are Brits, not foreign tourists bringing in foreign money.

according to the BBC
"The tourist board of Great Britain, VisitBritain, says tourism to royal residences like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle brings millions of visitors - and therefore money. Some people say tourism from the monarchy brings in about £550 million."

That doesn't address my comment, though. People would still visit all those places. Tourists don't go because they get an audience with the Queen. The sites would still be tourist attractions because of historic interest in the monarchy. In fact, the history of the monarchy is probably of greater visiter interest than the current BRF.

Have you ever been there yourself? You probably have no concept of it because you've not experienced it first hand. No offense. I'm British and I can tell you that MANY people go to those places, not just for the history but in the hope of spotting the Queen or other royal coming in or out in their cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That doesn't address my comment, though. People would still visit all those places. Tourists don't go because they get an audience with the Queen. The sites would still be tourist attractions because of historic interest in the monarchy. In fact, the history of the monarchy is probably of greater visiter interest than the current BRF.

Have you ever been there yourself? You probably have no concept of it because you've not experienced it first hand. No offense. I'm British and I can tell you that MANY people go to those places, not just for the history but in the hope of spotting the Queen or other royal coming in or out in their cars.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a joke. A lot of Brits really are that provincial, so maybe. If you ever go to the continent, Patronizing Brit, you'll see that people visit lots of unoccupied castles. The prospect of seeing royalty isn't the thrill you imagine.